How bad must a product be before consumption by children is prohibited?

boards of FL wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:Boards in order to prevent obesity in the picture you posted....you need to realize it was not McDonald's that caused the situation......100% of the blame lies with the irresponsible parent.

Correct.  So is that a valid explanation then?  "Hmm.  That was the parents decision".  That is the question here.  The kid isn't of the mental capacity to decide to eat McDonald's or not.  Should these kids be afforded any protection by society from irresponsible parents?  At what point do you cross the line from "parental decision" to "illegal"?

Nekochan wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote: Didn't you say your parents bought you Happy Meals? Were there standards that low?

We didn't know then what we know now; hence this thread.  Now that we know that McDonald's uses meat that is not fit for human consumption, and basically puts it through an ammonia wash and re-purposes it so that it just meets minimum standards to be consumed by human beings...now that we know this, shouldn't we take the next logical step and say only adults can consume this crap?  At the very least, shouldn't we prohibit the marketing of this waste to children via happy meals?

That is only your opinion that it's not fit for human consumption.   If your thinking was followed, all sweets and snacks would be banned.

gulfbeachbandit wrote:When mcdonalds happy meals are outlawed, only outlaws will have mcdonalds happy meals.

"From my cold dead hands".  Charlton Heston.

Sal wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:
Do you think it is ok?  Should the government ban  bourbon?

The boy was a contemporary of mine, so this happened four decades ago.

My mother told me about it.

At the time I think she thought it was irresponsible parenting.

With studies over the past four decades showing the adverse effects of alcohol on the developing brain, today I feel certain it would be considered child abuse.

Joanimaroni wrote:

Sal wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:
Do you think it is ok?  Should the government ban  bourbon?

The boy was a contemporary of mine, so this happened four decades ago.

My mother told me about it.

At the time I think she thought it was irresponsible parenting.

With studies over the past four decades showing the adverse effects of alcohol on the developing brain, today I feel certain it would be considered child abuse.

 It's called a worthless parent. Giving an infant any alcohol is extremely dangerous and illegal. Yes, it is abuse. Breastfeeding mother's, if they consume alcohol are told to pump and dump.....and give the infant their stored (previously frozen)breast milk.

The infants body absorbs alcohol much faster than adults. One ounce of alcohol could be fatal to an infant.

Sal wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:

Sal wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:
Do you think it is ok?  Should the government ban  bourbon?

The boy was a contemporary of mine, so this happened four decades ago.

My mother told me about it.

At the time I think she thought it was irresponsible parenting.

With studies over the past four decades showing the adverse effects of alcohol on the developing brain, today I feel certain it would be considered child abuse.

 It's called a worthless parent. Giving an infant any alcohol is extremely dangerous and illegal. Yes, it is abuse. Breastfeeding mother's, if they consume alcohol are told to pump and dump.....and give the infant their stored (previously frozen)breast milk.

The infants body absorbs alcohol much faster than adults. One ounce of alcohol could be fatal to an infant.

There you go. 


Parents should have the prerogative to feed kids poison. 

boards of FL wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:Boards in order to prevent obesity in the picture you posted....you need to realize it was not McDonald's that caused the situation......100% of the blame lies with the irresponsible parent.

Correct.  So is that a valid explanation then?  "Hmm.  That was the parents decision".  That is the question here.  The kid isn't of the mental capacity to decide to eat McDonald's or not.  Should these kids be afforded any protection by society from irresponsible parents?  At what point do you cross the line from "parental decision" to "illegal"?

Nekochan wrote:The kid in that photo (the photo was posted before when we were discussing this issue) does NOT have a happy meal in front of him.  That is a large drink and large fries.  

boards of FL wrote:You two are missing the point, and I don't think I am capable of explaining it any better.

boards of FL wrote:You two are missing the point, and I don't think I am capable of explaining it any better.

Nekochan wrote:

boards of FL wrote:You two are missing the point, and I don't think I am capable of explaining it any better.

I don't think I'm missing the point.  You want to somehow restrict or ban McDonald's for kids.   What about all the other restaurants that serve burgers and fries and milkshakes, etc?   What about parents who shop poorly in the supermarket and buy carts full of junk food to take home for their kids?  Do you want to go into these families' homes and dictate what they can buy at the grocery store and eat?  

Joanimaroni wrote:

boards of FL wrote:You two are missing the point, and I don't think I am capable of explaining it any better.

 Well just spit it out instead of speaking in circles waiting for us to guess what answer you are looking for.

You want the government to stifle and control free enterprise, operating within USDA guidelines, because of negligent parents....Parents that refuse to heed warnings regarding unhealthy aspects of a steady diet of fast food is not McDonald's fault.

boards of FL wrote:

Nekochan wrote:

boards of FL wrote:You two are missing the point, and I don't think I am capable of explaining it any better.

I don't think I'm missing the point.  You want to somehow restrict or ban McDonald's for kids.   What about all the other restaurants that serve burgers and fries and milkshakes, etc?   What about parents who shop poorly in the supermarket and buy carts full of junk food to take home for their kids?  Do you want to go into these families' homes and dictate what they can buy at the grocery store and eat?  

True.  And what about parents that physically beat their children?  There really isn't anything we can do to stop that either, so what sense is there to make that illegal?  

Plus, it's not as if we already have a working model in place for other products that we could follow.  No consumption of any product has ever been prohibited for minors before, so we would be breaking into uncharted territory here.

You're right.  There are simply too many roadblocks to deal with.  The best we can do is basically to allow large, multinational corporations to re-purpose dog food with ammonia and then market it to our children with toys and fancy lunch boxes, and then just deal with the childhood obesity epidemic in the hospitals when costly, long term care that was easily preventable with a common sense regulation will be needed.  It is simply a necessary evil.

Think I'll have a double fat burger with extra sauce for lunch today!

Nekochan wrote:If you think that the US food supply is unsafe and that food companies/restaurants practice unsafe processing methods and that they market dog food to children, then you need to take up your complaint with the USDA and the FDA.  

Pink slime is the common name for a controversial beef product. The name used in the meat industry is lean finely textured beef (LFTB)[3] and boneless lean beef trimmings (BLBT).[4] It is also known by the dysphemistic slang term soylent pink.[5][6][7][8] Pink slime is a processed beef product that was originally used in pet food and cooking oil and later approved for public consumption.[9] In 2001, The United States approved the product for limited human consumption and it was used as a food additive to ground beef and beef-based processed meats as a filler at a ratio of usually no more than 25 percent of any product. The production process uses heat in centrifuges to separate the fat from the meat in beef trimmings.[10] The resulting product is exposed to ammonia gas or citric acid to kill bacteria.[10][11]

Nekochan wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Nekochan wrote:

boards of FL wrote:You two are missing the point, and I don't think I am capable of explaining it any better.

I don't think I'm missing the point.  You want to somehow restrict or ban McDonald's for kids.   What about all the other restaurants that serve burgers and fries and milkshakes, etc?   What about parents who shop poorly in the supermarket and buy carts full of junk food to take home for their kids?  Do you want to go into these families' homes and dictate what they can buy at the grocery store and eat?  

True.  And what about parents that physically beat their children?  There really isn't anything we can do to stop that either, so what sense is there to make that illegal?  

Plus, it's not as if we already have a working model in place for other products that we could follow.  No consumption of any product has ever been prohibited for minors before, so we would be breaking into uncharted territory here.

You're right.  There are simply too many roadblocks to deal with.  The best we can do is basically to allow large, multinational corporations to re-purpose dog food with ammonia and then market it to our children with toys and fancy lunch boxes, and then just deal with the childhood obesity epidemic in the hospitals when costly, long term care that was easily preventable with a common sense regulation will be needed.  It is simply a necessary evil.

Think I'll have a double fat burger with extra sauce for lunch today!

If you think beating a child is the same as taking him to McDonald's for a Happy Meal, then you and I will never see eye to eye.

If you think that the US food supply is unsafe and that food companies/restaurants practice unsafe processing methods and that they market dog food to children, then you need to take up your complaint with the USDA and the FDA.  

boards of FL wrote:

Nekochan wrote:If you think that the US food supply is unsafe and that food companies/restaurants practice unsafe processing methods and that they market dog food to children, then you need to take up your complaint with the USDA and the FDA.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_slime

Pink slime is the common name for a controversial beef product. The name used in the meat industry is lean finely textured beef (LFTB)[3] and boneless lean beef trimmings (BLBT).[4] It is also known by the dysphemistic slang term soylent pink.[5][6][7][8] Pink slime is a processed beef product that was originally used in pet food and cooking oil and later approved for public consumption.[9] In 2001, The United States approved the product for limited human consumption and it was used as a food additive to ground beef and beef-based processed meats as a filler at a ratio of usually no more than 25 percent of any product. The production process uses heat in centrifuges to separate the fat from the meat in beef trimmings.[10] The resulting product is exposed to ammonia gas or citric acid to kill bacteria.[10][11]

boards of FL wrote:

Nekochan wrote:

boards of FL wrote:You two are missing the point, and I don't think I am capable of explaining it any better.

I don't think I'm missing the point.  You want to somehow restrict or ban McDonald's for kids.   What about all the other restaurants that serve burgers and fries and milkshakes, etc?   What about parents who shop poorly in the supermarket and buy carts full of junk food to take home for their kids?  Do you want to go into these families' homes and dictate what they can buy at the grocery store and eat?  

True.  And what about parents that physically beat their children?  There really isn't anything we can do to stop that either, so what sense is there to make that illegal?  

Plus, it's not as if we already have a working model in place for other products that we could follow.  No consumption of any product has ever been prohibited for minors before, so we would be breaking into uncharted territory here.

You're right.  There are simply too many roadblocks to deal with.  The best we can do is basically to allow large, multinational corporations to re-purpose dog food with ammonia and then market it to our children with toys and fancy lunch boxes, and then just deal with the childhood obesity epidemic in the hospitals when costly, long term care that was easily preventable with a common sense regulation will be needed.  It is simply a necessary evil.

Think I'll have a double fat burger with extra sauce for lunch today!

boards of FL wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:

boards of FL wrote:You two are missing the point, and I don't think I am capable of explaining it any better.

 Well just spit it out instead of speaking in circles waiting for us to guess what answer you are looking for.

You want the government to stifle and control free enterprise, operating within USDA guidelines, because of negligent parents....Parents that refuse to heed warnings regarding unhealthy aspects of a steady diet of fast food is not McDonald's fault.

I've said it several times.  If someone isn't of the mental capacity to grasp the long term, negative consequences of consuming a product, there should be a law that prohibits their consumption of said product.

You can't feed alcohol to dogs.

You can't let your 4 year old get a tattoo of a Power Ranger on his forehead.

You can't feed your kid dog food that has been repurposed to look like beef through some processing with ammonia.

ImpishScoundrel wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:

boards of FL wrote:You two are missing the point, and I don't think I am capable of explaining it any better.

 Well just spit it out instead of speaking in circles waiting for us to guess what answer you are looking for.

You want the government to stifle and control free enterprise, operating within USDA guidelines, because of negligent parents....Parents that refuse to heed warnings regarding unhealthy aspects of a steady diet of fast food is not McDonald's fault.

I've said it several times.  If someone isn't of the mental capacity to grasp the long term, negative consequences of consuming a product, there should be a law that prohibits their consumption of said product.

You can't feed alcohol to dogs.

You can't let your 4 year old get a tattoo of a Power Ranger on his forehead.

You can't feed your kid dog food that has been repurposed to look like beef through some processing with ammonia.

And, the government can't fix stupid!

boards of FL wrote:

Nekochan wrote:

boards of FL wrote:You two are missing the point, and I don't think I am capable of explaining it any better.

I don't think I'm missing the point.  You want to somehow restrict or ban McDonald's for kids.   What about all the other restaurants that serve burgers and fries and milkshakes, etc?   What about parents who shop poorly in the supermarket and buy carts full of junk food to take home for their kids?  Do you want to go into these families' homes and dictate what they can buy at the grocery store and eat?  

True.  And what about parents that physically beat their children?  There really isn't anything we can do to stop that either, so what sense is there to make that illegal?  

Plus, it's not as if we already have a working model in place for other products that we could follow.  No consumption of any product has ever been prohibited for minors before, so we would be breaking into uncharted territory here.

You're right.  There are simply too many roadblocks to deal with.  The best we can do is basically to allow large, multinational corporations to re-purpose dog food with ammonia and then market it to our children with toys and fancy lunch boxes, and then just deal with the childhood obesity epidemic in the hospitals when costly, long term care that was easily preventable with a common sense regulation will be needed.  It is simply a necessary evil.

Think I'll have a double fat burger with extra sauce for lunch today!